Film/TV

THE CHOSEN:

Thomas the Tank Engine and his surprising Jewish connections (Jonathan Myers, 9/16/26, Jewish Chronicle)

The first connections begin not in Britain but, in what was then, Mandatory Palestine. Long before he became one of the world’s best-loved children’s authors, Awdry spent three years in Jerusalem. Between 1933 and 1936 he taught at St George’s School while preparing for ordination as an Anglican priest. At the school Awdry met Margaret Wale, a fellow teacher, whom he married two years later in 1938. Their son Christopher, born in 1940, became the original audience for the bedtime stories that eventually grew into The Railway Series. Had Awdry never gone to Jerusalem, Thomas’s story might never have been told.

During those Jerusalem years Awdry lived in a city served by the famous Jaffa–Jerusalem Railway, the first railway built in what he would have called the Holy Land. It owed its existence to Joseph Navon, a Jerusalem-born Sephardi Jewish entrepreneur who, after years of persistence, secured the Ottoman concession to build the line, overcoming formidable political and financial obstacles before French investors eventually joined the project. By the time Awdry arrived, the railway had become part of the British-administered railway system. There is no concrete evidence that it directly inspired Thomas, but it is difficult to imagine that such an enthusiastic railwayman as Awdry would not have known the line that climbed spectacularly from the Mediterranean coast into the Judean Hills. Put it like this: it is an intriguing coincidence that, before creating the world’s most famous fictional railway, Awdry spent three years living in the vicinity of one of its most remarkable Jewish ones.

CLARENCE, THEO AND SONNY:

In Defense of Frank Capra, Rodgers & Hammerstein, & “Theo of Golden” (Louis Markos, September 13th, 2026, Imaginative Conservative)

The core message of Capra’s films, Rodgers and Hammerstein’s musicals, and Levi’s novel, what makes them so beloved by so many Americans, is best summed up in a rousing speech from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The honest but naïve Jefferson Smith is chosen by the corrupt political party of his state to serve out the term of their flunky in the Senate who died suddenly. Jeff takes his cues from senior Senator Paine who knew his father and whom Jeff idolizes. When Jeff learns that Paine has compromised and is in the pocket of the ruthless businessman Taylor, he speaks up, only to be framed for the very crime he tried to expose. He flees to the Lincoln Memorial, prepared to give up the fight and return to his state. There he is met by his secretary, Clarissa Saunders, who, though she has not approved of Paine’s corruption, has succumbed to cynicism and apathy.

But Jeff has woken something decent and hopeful in her. She meets him at his moment of deepest despair and challenges him to renew his faith and hope in himself and the country he loves:

Your friend, Mr. Lincoln had his Taylors and Paines. So did every other man who ever tried to lift his thought up off the ground. Odds against them didn’t stop those men. They were fools that way. All the good that ever came into this world came from fools with faith like that. You know that, Jeff. You can’t quit now. Not you. They aren’t all Taylors and Paines in Washington. That kind just throw big shadows, that’s all. You didn’t just have faith in Paine or any other living man. You had faith in something bigger than that. You had plain, decent, everyday, common rightness, and this country could use some of that. Yeah, so could the whole cockeyed world, a lot of it.

Rarely has the true, optimistic but realistic, idealistic but conservative, quixotic but practical ethos of America been so clearly stated. There is evil in the world that is manipulated by self-aggrandizing individuals, but there is also a goodness and a rightness in people that can overcome the corruption. Good is stronger than evil, but it too often lacks focus, confidence, and vision. There is no Rousseauvian denial of original sin here. Sin is real and predatory, and no one is immune from its ravages. But there is a bigger picture, a larger hope that we have lost sight of. We need fools—dare I say holy fools—like Jefferson Smith to wake us up to what we know is true. The villains are so brash and bold that they cow us into believing that they are the majority, that their theories and methods are unassailable, that we cannot resist their will. They give us only two options: Join the team or be crushed. Jeff finds a third way.

Recognizing our Fallenness does not exempt us from trying to be decent, even loving, towards one another.

TRUMPISTS HIT HARDEST:

The Odyssey Wars (Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, August 7, 2026, New Lines)

In the Hindu Kush highlands where I was born, there is no word for beggar. The itinerant mendicants who walk the valley are called “mustafer,” which is Khowar for “traveler.” If one turns up at your door, you offer them food and shelter. The travelers rarely tax your generosity. The same courtesy is extended to any stranger, regardless of standing. The Pashtuns of Pakistan and Afghanistan also have the same tradition. Every Pashtun household with means has a “hujra,” usually a large room where any guest — known or unknown — is offered hospitality. The guests in turn honor the tradition by offering hospitality to others, who may be strangers to them. The tradition is sustained by paying it forward.

Ancient Greeks would recognize this tradition. They called it “xenia.” The word is derived from “xenos,” the Greek word for “stranger.” Hospitality to strangers was understood as both a moral obligation and service to the gods. Zeus and Athena were believed to be protectors of strangers. The tradition obliged the host to provide hospitality and the guest to show courtesy and not to abuse the host’s generosity. The tradition was sustained by the same combination of reciprocity and paying forward.

Such traditions have all but disappeared from the West. There are individual acts of generosity, but nothing that is sustained by a shared code. Indeed, over the past decade, the stranger has become a subject of hostility and derision — and not just for the far right. Before his defenestration, former U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer had mined xenophobia for political gain by lamenting Britain’s decline into an “island of strangers.” The word “xenophobia” is derived from the same root as “xenia.”

In adapting Homer’s epic “The Odyssey,” Christopher Nolan has chosen to use xenia as the moral pivot of the story. Except that Nolan broadens it into what he calls “Zeus’ law,” which he equates to the golden rule: Treat others as you’d have them treat you. In doing so, he makes the principle universal, accessible to more than an exclusive club of classicists, while also making the epic’s final irruption of violence less incomprehensible to a modern audience. Ancient Greek traditions of hospitality may not be familiar to the average cinemagoer, but everyone understands fairness.

TEAM MENSCH:

Camus and Columbo? The Unlikely Link Between European Existentialism and American Detective TV Series: The television series Columbo and Camus’ novel ‘A Happy Death’ were directly inspired by Dostoevsky’s classic novel of existential guilt, ‘Crime and Punishment.’ (Simon Lea, 6/25/26, The Collector)

The detective in Crime & Punishment is Porfiry Petrovich, the head of the Investigation Department. Just like Lieutenant Columbo, Petrovich never bullies, harasses, or even outright accuses his suspect. Rather, the psychologically astute detective seeks to confuse, provoke, and trap Raskolnikov into confessing. In addition, in Levison and Link’s television series, Colombo also refrains from showing animosity towards the men he knows to be murderers. Often, Colombo sets clever traps designed to force the murderer’s hand and draw out a confession. In Dostoevsky’s novel, Petrovich does so too. […]

Raskolnikov and Patrice both see their society’s laws and moral restrictions as obstructions to be overcome by superior people. For them, people are ultimately free to do what is best for them and have a responsibility to take control of their own lives. Both characters consider themselves to be stifled by a lack of funds and take it upon themselves to acquire what they need without concern for other people’s rules. The murderers in Columbo all think the same way.

THE CULTURE WARS ARE A ROUT:

Passion Plays?: Why The Chosen and Stranger Things Captivate Us (Leonie Caldecott, March 30, 2026, Curuch Life Journal)

Then go back to Stranger Things. El is not a Christ-figure. She is not even an angelic figure. She is a superhero, which is an entirely different trope. Superheroes are simply power-endowed human beings. What they do with that power is the hinge on which everything turns. El extracts herself from her compromising situation in a very different way from Judas. She surrenders the power to harm. My gut feeling is that this motive does not actually endorse suicide. It simply endorses sacrifice: of known security, known life. Beyond that, we do not get to follow her.

Back to The Chosen. The point about Jesus is that while both human and divine, he is precisely not a superhero. He will not, as Judas believes, slay his enemies at the last moment: that has never been his MO. Judas’s main flaw is a failure of the imagination, which you could characterize as, simply, bad theology. This is the scandal of Christianity. The author of life, in some way, must die. The Christ will descend, voluntarily, into the valley of bones, through the agony of the Passion. The agony of defeat: of real, absolute, undeniable death. Already in the Garden of Gethsemane, we see him being mentally tortured by what is coming, and by the sleepiness and fearfulness of his followers. Nicodemus caught in his ivory tower trying to belatedly join the dots. Peter and James and John bewildered and afraid. The apostles clutching a few primitive weapons as a ten-ton-truck hurtles down the infested freeway of hell.

No one is on point. No one is going to win. Jesus knows all this. His human body is racked with fear and troubled to the point of collapse. But he goes to meet his betrayer anyway. What follows is the cry of the innocent the world over and through to our time, this time, this terrible moment in history. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

God had to experience the Fall in order to fully comprehend us, and, thereby, forgive us.

THE CULTURE WARS ARE A ROUT:

The Comic Faith of O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Coby Dolloff, 2/02/26, Christ and Pop Culture)

Returning to Everett’s farm, not to find the treasure they sought, but to retrieve his wedding ring, they are met by the bespectacled lawman who has dogged their trail all along. He has prepared nooses, graves—and even a haunting troupe of gravedigging singers.

“But we’s been pardoned! They announced it on the radio!” the three protest. The policeman replies with haunting simplicity: “We don’t have a radio.”

Faced with the impending reality of death, Everett puts up an earnest prayer for salvation. There are no atheists in foxholes.

And, like clockwork, the deus ex-es the machina. Floodwaters come streaming down that engulf both the just and the unjust in a torrent of household furniture and Dapper Dan pomade. Safely afloat a coffin Moby-Dick style, Delmar attempts to point out to Everett that his prayer worked.

But on the other side of peril, Everett is back to rationalizing. The valley was, of course, already scheduled to be flooded by local bureaucrats. It is not God, but modern technology that has saved them. Everett smugly concludes, “Yessir, we’re gonna have us a veritable age of reason.” But then something floats by which leaves both protagonist and viewer with the furrowed brow of recall.

The other cow just dropped. Memory has spoken. It has all come to pass, just as the old prophet Tiresias predicted.

The Coens’ comic masterpiece fits comfortably into the “Christ-haunted American South” of Flannery O’Connor. It muses, alongside Hamlet, “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy!”

THE ONE STORY:

Where the Frontier Meets the Galaxy: The Western Genre and the Moral Imagination of Star Wars (Cole Burgett, 1/21/26, Christ and Pop Culture)

But more than set dressing, it’s the moral architecture of the Western that gives Star Wars its discernable spine. The best Westerns understand that wide open spaces don’t make life simpler. On the frontier, there’s nowhere to hide who you really are. A man’s character isn’t protected by institutions or excuses. Instead, it’s revealed whenever trouble rides into town. A rancher who refuses to bend to corruption, a gunman who finally hangs up his weapon, a sheriff who stands his ground when the rest of the town scatters—these traits define them more than the outcome of any gunfight or duel ever could.

Likewise, Star Wars is filled with moral clarity born from the same crucible. Han Solo stands right where the Western and the space opera overlap. He begins the classic wandering gun-hand, cut from the same cloth as L’Amour’s Lance Kilkenny or Hondo Lane, self-reliant, suspicious, interested only in profit. He’ll draw his blaster in a heartbeat. He shoots first. He’s the man who insists he “ain’t in this for your revolution.” But like so many of L’Amour’s protagonists, Han is not morally static. Western heroes often start self-serving but become protectors when faced with injustice that threatens people they’ve come to care about. Han’s arc sees him become something even more recognizably Western: a good man forged in a bad land.

THE CULTURE WARS ARE A ROUT:

Two Classics: “Crime and Punishment” and “Columbo” (Dwight Longenecker, September 16th, 2025, Imaginative Conservative)

So Columbo, like Crime and Punishment, is a classic, and rightfully so because it too penetrates to the heart of a modern heresy and exposes it for the lie that it is. This is the Nietzschean idea of the ubermensch—the superman who can transcend ordinary law. Nietzsche formalized the idea later in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but Dostoevsky has Raskolnikov echoing proto-Nietzschean concepts: the utilitarian and Hegelian theories abroad in nineteenth-century Russia.

Columbo deflates the arrogance of his suspects; in the final scene each murderer is humbled. So Dostoevsky critiques the superman heresy by showing that Raskolnikov does not have the emotional fortitude to live with his irrevocable act. His final humiliation (and salvation) is to accept the unconditional love of Sonya and to pursue the path of repentance and reparation.

WE’RE A CONSERVATIVE CULTURE:

The Lonely Way Back Home (Benjamin Braddock, 4/23/25, IM1776)

The antecedent of the counterculture was a melange of conservatives nostalgic for pre-industrial community and urban radicals dreaming of post-industrial utopia. Both shared a deep skepticism toward centralized authority, technological determinism, and mass consumer culture.

It’s for this reason that authors such as John Steinbeck and Jack Kerouac—two of Dylan’s major literary inspirations—are often perceived as “leftist” or “crypto-Bolshevik”, despite their work showing a deep affection for American traditions, ideals, institutions, and the American people. It’s clear from Sea of Cortez, East of Eden, or Travels with Charley: In Search of America that Steinbeck simply loved the country too much to want to see it radically changed, whether through communism or capitalism (fundamentally two sides of the same coin: industrial society). As for Kerouac, his 1957 roman à clef On the Road, which became a defining work of the Beat generation and has since endured as one of the most widely popular books among young men, even as it celebrated freedom and adventure, was fundamentally a work of American romanticism, not radical politics. Its protagonists sought transcendence within the American landscape rather than revolutionary transformation of American society.

AN AWESOME CINEMA:

The Business of Hollywood Is Horror (and Faith-Based) (Joseph Holmes, October 7, 2025, Religion & Liberty)

You see, movies have always relied to some degree on “awe,” and the further filmmakers leaned into awing their audience, the more successful they became. This is why, throughout film history, short films gave way to features, which gave way to epics, which gave way to blockbusters, which gave way to the mega-blockbusters. But this “awe effect” comes with a big price tag. We have to see Spider-Man swing, Superman fly, and Batman punch people throughout the film or we feel unsatisfied. And this costs a lot of money to do over and over again.

But this isn’t true of horror and faith-based films, where the biggest awe factor is the thing we don’t see. In faith-based films, that’s God. You can have a faith-based film that deals simply with ordinary people doing normal things, but as they get closer to God or God acts dramatically in their lives, fans of the genre feel the same elation as they do when seeing the Millennium Falcon shoot into hyperspace. Likewise, in horror films, we are often there to see the monster. But we also expect—and want—to not see the monster most of the time, because a lot of the entertainment is in the fear of anticipation that the monster’s hiddenness brings. So again, it’s much cheaper to make a monster in a horror film because we don’t expect to see it throughout most of the movie.

The other thing that gives faith-based films and horror films an advantage is that they resist the erosion of monoculture, as both genres lean heavily on religious narratives and religious communities that involve people meeting every week and listening to the same stories together. Haidt notes this in The Anxious Generation as well. Religious services bind people together under a shared system of values and experiences. This creates a common culture of tastes and values that movies can then appeal to. As secular culture continues to subdivide into smaller and smaller subcultures, religious communities will stand out as the biggest and least divided of the subcultures, making it easier for studios to identify and reach out to.